Posted by
ryuzaki0
on from the but-how-will-i-know-when-to-change-chords dept.
Gavitron writes "The online Guitar Tablature Archive OLGA.net has been shutdown again, to "ensure that composers and songwriters will continue to have incentive to create new music for generations to come." Scant details exist, but there is more information in forums and blogs."
somehow showing somebody how to play a song will prevent people from writing new songs?
Point taken: the connection is a shakey one at best, but I think you're playing it a bit too dumb. People do actually get revenue from people purchasing scores, for buying performance rights, etc. I can understand the *ehem* logic behind this: that every person who views the site could have bought the official notation. Honestly though, I think sharing music is more like sharing lyrics than sharing recordings. You can whistle your favourite tune on the street just fine, even though it could technically be called an arrangement and public performance.
-- You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Re:Wait a minute...
by
tepples
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Think about it--the closure of tab sites on the net will result in a reduction in the number of bad cover bands. Either those people will never play music, or they'll be forced to attempt to create their own music.
Strategy meeting
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
The contents of OLGA are ascii, very low bandwidth high density data. It should fit onto a single CD. It can be served by a simple httpd. The online archive should be moved to two new hosts. The hosts do not have to be powerful machines. Nor do the temporary operators need to see themselves as the "new" archive, merely temporary mirrors. The only requirement for an operator is that they should know at least TWO friends or colleagues who will host the archive on their machines and the skills to set that up. At the first hint of a takedown notice each operator should comply after stalling only long enough to replicate the archive. Let's show these cunts the power of the hydra and what exponential bifurcation means.
Tabs still available on archive.org
by
Ph33r+th3+g(O)at
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Here's one, for example. Can't just go to the root page via archive.org and start clicking links, though, as the links to the artists and tabs aren't modified, even though the tabs are in the archive. And if it hasn't happened already, I'm sure these small text files will be compressed into an archive and posted regularly to Usenet.
-- I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
OLGA to become an errata sheet?
by
tepples
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
That they won't be able to sell you the same tune for an Nth time in the form of an "official" (and often crappy) guitar translation.
If this is the case, then OLGA might again rise from the ashes as a sort of "errata sheet" to the official translation, explaining every single error in every single song book. Criticism of a copyrighted work is likely to be ruled as fair use of that work and thus not an infringement (17 USC 107).
Klezmer clarinet virtuoso concealed his fingering
by
dpbsmith
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Naftule Brandwein, the Klezmer clarinet virtuoso, turned his back on the audience in order to keep the secret of the finger he used to achieve certain effects.
Of course, we're talking "trade secret," not "copyright" here.
I wonder whether he ever considered patenting his fingerings? I wonder whether that's possible. It seems to me that it might be.
Re:Wait a minute...
by
chmod+a+x+mojo
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Cover bands aren't all bad. Yeah SOME are, but just like any software you may find, there are probably 3-4 good ones for every bad one. If anything this would stiffle innovation, do you really think that ANY of the artists that became famous just up and started writing new stuff? Nope they ALL started by playing the music THEY grew up listening to. I don't know anyone who just picked up a guitar and started writing original music, it is impossible. You must first learn chording etc. from actual songs to "hear" how to mesh everything together.
-- To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
This reminds me of the joke argument that people make about having their minds erased after hearing music because remembering the song is a form of copying.
Tabs on OLGA aren't from published sheet music, they're written by people learning to play the song by ear. (And, they're usually wrong, in my experience)
Not the DMCA
by
John+Hasler
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The site was not "shut down by the DMCA". It was shut down by copyright law.
-- Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Re:Innocent before proven guilty
by
evanism
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Crikey, I had it down as "you are guilty of anything until proven innocent at extreme cost".
Law = defense Defense = time Time = money Money = profit... QED; Law = profit
Better watch out. Gitmo awaits you all my learned friends! Rendition...?
Ergo... plead guilty, its cheaper than going broke, even if you are innocent.
-- Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
This story reminds me of a short story called Melancholy Elephants, which gives a theory on what could happen is copyright were extended indefinitely.
"Senator, if I try to hoard the fruits of my husband's genius, I may cripple my race. Don't you see what perpetual copyright implies? It is perpetual racial memory! That bill will give the human race an elephant's memory. Have you ever seen a cheerful elephant?"
An interesting read.
-- It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Re:Klezmer clarinet virtuoso concealed his fingeri
by
Xamataca
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Let's go back to the ancient school tradition were masters and artisans of every discipline only shared is knowledge with fellow members and disciples.
Let's develope obscure societies with secret rules, strict hierarchies and stupid ceremonies all for the high and noble ideal of keeping the secrets away from the peasants.
Welcome to the future, welcome to the Middle Age.
-- ***Game Over***Insert Coin***
Re:Hang on...
by
Mr.+Slippery
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You'r not just chatting to a few friends any more than singing a song on stage in front of thousands is the same as singing along to your iPod.
If you're in front of even one paying customer, singing along to your iPod is still a public performance requiring payment. Under the right circumstances, singing a song on stage in front of a large audience could be non-commercial. (I sang a Ween song on a "stage" in front of at least 100 people at the national Rainbow Gathering last year, a very non-commercial venue.)
If I'm playing in a bar with one guy drinking, royalties are required; if I'm playing for free at a friend's party with 100 people there, royalties are not required.
Size of the audience is not relevant.
Same goes with teaching a song. What, if I'm at that party with 100 people and I tell everyone what the chords to "Louie, Louie" are (and that they're the same as "Wild Thing"), I owe somebody a nickel? No way. That's a factual statement, covered by my free speech rights.
And it doesn't matter if there are 1,000 people at that party, or 10,000.
And if I post that information to the internet - the chords are A, D, E, D, repeat (and the break on Wild Thing is G - A - G - A) - that's still my free speech right.
-- Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog You cannot wash away blood with blood
I don't agree with a lot of the stuff that people post on here. I don't agree with a lot of people's political views. I am against the war (which I would assume most here are). I'm against smoking bans in states and cities on private property (I think if you don't like a restraunt because it is smoke-filled you can do what my parents and I did when i was litte: tell them their restraunt smells like ass and we won't be back unless they ban smoking in their facility). I think private businesses (but not government or businesses with public contracts) should be able to discriminate against people if they damn well please, whether it be because they don't like gays, catholics, women, white people, or whatever the hell they like (but if they have public contracts they should have to adhere to non-discriminatory policies). If they discriminate I'll be one of the ones telling everyone I know not go there.
I'm a Christian and I believe God created man (not necessarily 6k years ago, but w/e) but I don't think we should teach creation in schools as scientific theory. I don't think homosexuality is necessarly right but I am 100% (and I argue with as many other christians as I can to try to convince them) pro gay-marriage because, thank God we do not live in a theocracy (look at the middle east). I am for drug legalization and against the death penalty. I agree with some and disagree with some of the views that are the norm here.
Yet this kind of shit is just RIDICULOUS. OF COURSE you should NOT be allowed to sneak into the studio, copy the sheets of music (or w/e if they are on a computer), paste them into a file, save it as a PDF and save it online. I think we can pretty much all agree that this should be a civil infraction (I think reasonable people should also agree that there is nothing *criminal* about doing that and the gov should not be paying to investigate copyright infringment either, but w/e).
But if someone figures out the damn chords themselves from listening to the fucking music, YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY ABILITY TO PREVENT THEM FROM SHARING WHAT THEY HAVE HEARD WITH THEIR FRIENDS. GOOD GOD. If someone listens to your music, figures out how to play it on their instrument (lets not limit this to popular music) there should be NO LAW and NO PENALTY for them sharing what they have figured out. To try to control human thought is just unconciable.
There is a *HUGE* difference between trying to share the ability to play a song and infringing on someone's copyright. When copyright was invented (before the U.S. even existed) it didn't extend to people trying to figure out the notes to what they were hearing and playing them back to their friends.
It is already at the point where schools have been sued for performing music in plays etc when they did not have a license to perform it in a public performance. Is this what was intended?
I believe that if you walk up to someone on the street who is not familiar at all with copyright law and ask them questions about what they believe is right or not right, you would garner a pretty reasonable response overall. It is worthy of a lawsuit if you make a play about some guy's script and charge money for it. That guy who wrote the damn thing deserves to be compensated. But if your kid's elementary school finds that play on the 'net and performs it for the parents at Thanksgiving, fuck you if you think that is wrong and fuck you if you think the school should have to pay. Seriously.
There comes a point at which our society needs to decide which way it is going to go. There can either be a place for the modern day media corporations, or they can stay behind. That is their choice. But they cannot drag everyone else back in time with them. If they succeed in taking control of what people can or cannot think then it is only a matter of time before freedom of (or from) religion, freedom to own firearms, freedom to speak our minds (well, drugs are already illegal so we are getting there), etc... also fall to the same precedents.
-- replacing it with NEW Folger's Crystals! (lets see if they notice the difference)
Then amateur tabs is definitely not the answer. The general concensus today is that most guitarists are unable to even read a staff, especially when it's a 6 (7 or even 12) string guitar chord. Tabs are used everywhere because they are easier, the music staff is pushed up an octave for guitar from piano, and it really was never designed for guitar. This is why they even have finger diagrams for chords. It's much easier than reading several notes, unless you truly learn that way first. If any guitarist saw tabs after learning "hard" chords on staffs, I think they would immediately see the benefits of reading tabs live if they weren't going to memorize it. Would you consider learning tabs as "reading music"? I definitely would.
I agree on understanding music theory though. Not even I have done much of that yet.
And the other thing is that some people are said to just not have a musical ear, which is the reason for written music, including tabs. Someone loves the song Johnny B. Goode, but can't even figure out that fast guitar riff going on through the entire song because they simply can't hear it. And a lot of times that's true for me even, sometimes notes are too fast to hear (this is the time when I pull out Sound Forge and do a time stretch), and I keep matching notes, sometimes tabbing them down, till I finish. Other times the scale is obvious; I think I have a better than ear than some of my friends because some praise tab sites like OLGA, and I hate what I would consider inaccuracies. Books are 100% accurate apparently, but I really don't own many and don't feel like I need to (plus the price). The argument then becomes, as usual, why pay when you can get it for free? Shouldn't written music be like free speech? Why can't the publishing company lower the prices? Sometimes, even the most simple music gets priced at $20 or more per book (I'm not advocating prices based on complexity either). That's more than the album, which you could buy and just play by ear if you have one. My $0.02.
Re:Do you forget 17 USC 107 et seq?
by
Jerf
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
From my understanding, once you change a couple of "riffs" in the song, it becomes a different song and therefore is not subject to copyright.
Your understanding needs to grow to include the concept of derivative work.
Believe me, I am well aware the current copyright system has some major conceptual holes in it (most of which even the Slashdot community really hasn't gotten to noticing yet) and the shit has only begun to hit the fan. But the system is not so broken that they would fail to notice such an obvious hole that would allow you to basically strip copyright protection from whatever you want with minimal effort.
Just because I am correcting you on this point should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the entire existing system, or as anything other than, simply, a correction on how you understand the current system.
> Would you consider learning tabs as "reading music"?
Hmm... Not really. It's more like reading "Cliffs Notes." You get the gist of it, but the execution is greatly obscured. Sheet music tells you things that just aren't in tabulatures: most importantly, note and rest duration. But it also shows other things, like note style (legato/staccato), volume changes ([de]crescendos), and there are other handy things like codas. I believe it is also easier to denote dramatic changes in the music, such as time or key signatures, in the middle of a song.
Also with sheet music, it is easier to represent more than one instrument on the same page, although since we are only talking about one instrument here (guitar), that's mostly just a space-saving convenience and not really important in this discussion. Unless you have a friend that plays Bass.:)
BTW, I'm not really suggesting that tabs are worse than sheet music. With tabs, a creative person may take more liberties with the music, adding their own feel to it, making it "theirs." With sheet music, people usually play exactly what is printed, exactly as was originally intended.
Music is sound, not notation. The ear is the proper organ for sound, not the eye.
The correct way to use notation is to "hear" it in the mind's ear and play from that, so the first thing you need to play well from notation is a really good ear. . . backed up by music theory so you know what it is you're hearing; and why.
But I advise beginning to learn your theory with a monochord and a yard/meterstick and moving on to a one octave koto/dulcimer, tuning your intervals by ear. The piano has been the death of musical sense.
KFG
This reminds me of what Mozart did
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
When Mozart was in Italy, he went to the Sistine Chapel to hear Gregorio Allegri's Miserere performed. He then proceeded to write it out from memory, returning the next day to correct some minor errors. Miserere was a closely guarded work of the Vatican and what Mozart did would have been illegal.
Kind of funny that one of the first instances of music "theft" came from one of the most brilliant composers of all time.
Eventually,
by
Progman3K
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Learning how to play an instrument could become illegal: When you learn how to play an instrument, you gain the skills to be able to 'reverse-engineer' and copy just about any piece of music. What's to stop you from learning the notes to a melody then?
After all, if they use software to write the music, they no longer need artists. If they never need to pay an artist, they keep all the profits.
Finally, by discouraging the freedom of sharing of musical exploration and discovery among people, they hope to make us unable to compete.
-- I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Mod parent up
by
commodoresloat
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I'm sick of hearing about artists supporting this kind of crap. If you don't want people to learn from your creative output, don't make it public! Sit in your room and play your fancy guitar chords through your headphones. All intellectual progress has come from open sharing of ideas, not from hoarding them. I'm a DJ, and this reminds me of early DJs who used to soak their records in hot soapy water to remove the labels so that people couldn't see what record they were playing. It's yet another logical leap of absurdity, since they were playing music recorded by someone else to begin with. Luckily, the world of turntablism appears to have moved beyond that embarrassing history, as most well known DJs today share their techniques and "secrets" through classes, videos, etc. I think suing people for sharing ideas in general is nonsense, but doing it in this way - specifically attacking people for figuring something out on their own and sharing what they've learned - is uniquely execrable.
I wonder how this affects music teachers
by
dvNull
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Since the MPA and NMPA are now claiming that tabs violate their copyright, how does this affect music teachers? When I learnt how to play a guitar from a private teacher, he used a combination of sheet music and tablature to teach me how to play. He wrote down the music notation as well as the tabs and did not use any published book.
If they MPA and NMPA are shown to have rights concerning music tabs, then teachers will find it much harder to teach since they HAVE to purchase *AA authorized sheet music and cannot 'reverse engineer' the sounds into notations.
The scary part is that in the future other forms of media will be restricted so much that any cultural development will stagnate so much that we all might as well be zombies.
Very true, which is why today there is more and more music coming out that does not follow the "rules", even music theory rules. See the links below please:
These are some of the many genres today breaking all the "rules." I don't personally like this stuff, but I know many others who do, and I can definitely see in the future that things like this will change music back to the way it was before the "experts" came along.
Indeed everyone will sing again and play instruments without a care, search YouTube for noise music videos, it's crazy shit and people seem to like it.
Why is it in RIAA's interest to destroy music?
by
robbak
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
People become musicians by playing with music. First step is often chord based from sites like OLGA. Then progressing to full tablatures, again from OLGA. Then they are good enought to start making money. Then they start paying royalties on songs they cover when they start selling music, or mildly serious public performance. RIAA starts making money. But it all starts from those guitar tabs! RIAA makes money from talent. Talent starts from OLGA. So RIAA makes their money thanks to OLGA. What a great reasong for RIAA to shut it down. If I thought that they had any logic, I'd be puzzled. But this is just so typical.
-- Prediction for end of Universe #42:
Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
Slashdot Mirror
Point taken: the connection is a shakey one at best, but I think you're playing it a bit too dumb. People do actually get revenue from people purchasing scores, for buying performance rights, etc. I can understand the *ehem* logic behind this: that every person who views the site could have bought the official notation. Honestly though, I think sharing music is more like sharing lyrics than sharing recordings. You can whistle your favourite tune on the street just fine, even though it could technically be called an arrangement and public performance.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
If they attempt to create their own music, they'll still get sued. Look what happened to George Harrison. Worse, there is a combinatoric argument that this was bound to happen.
The contents of OLGA are ascii, very low bandwidth high density data. It should fit onto a single CD. It can be served by a simple httpd. The online archive should be moved to two new hosts. The hosts do not have to be powerful machines. Nor do the temporary operators need to see themselves as the "new" archive, merely temporary mirrors. The only requirement for an operator is that they should know at least TWO friends or colleagues who will host the archive on their machines and the skills to set that up. At the first hint of a takedown notice each operator should comply after stalling only long enough to replicate the archive. Let's show these cunts the power of the hydra and what exponential bifurcation means.
Here's one, for example. Can't just go to the root page via archive.org and start clicking links, though, as the links to the artists and tabs aren't modified, even though the tabs are in the archive. And if it hasn't happened already, I'm sure these small text files will be compressed into an archive and posted regularly to Usenet.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
If this is the case, then OLGA might again rise from the ashes as a sort of "errata sheet" to the official translation, explaining every single error in every single song book. Criticism of a copyrighted work is likely to be ruled as fair use of that work and thus not an infringement (17 USC 107).
Naftule Brandwein, the Klezmer clarinet virtuoso, turned his back on the audience in order to keep the secret of the finger he used to achieve certain effects.
Of course, we're talking "trade secret," not "copyright" here.
I wonder whether he ever considered patenting his fingerings? I wonder whether that's possible. It seems to me that it might be.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Cover bands aren't all bad. Yeah SOME are, but just like any software you may find, there are probably 3-4 good ones for every bad one. If anything this would stiffle innovation, do you really think that ANY of the artists that became famous just up and started writing new stuff? Nope they ALL started by playing the music THEY grew up listening to. I don't know anyone who just picked up a guitar and started writing original music, it is impossible. You must first learn chording etc. from actual songs to "hear" how to mesh everything together.
To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
This reminds me of the joke argument that people make about having their minds erased after hearing music because remembering the song is a form of copying.
Tabs on OLGA aren't from published sheet music, they're written by people learning to play the song by ear. (And, they're usually wrong, in my experience)
The site was not "shut down by the DMCA". It was shut down by copyright law.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Crikey, I had it down as "you are guilty of anything until proven innocent at extreme cost".
Law = defense
Defense = time
Time = money
Money = profit... QED;
Law = profit
Better watch out. Gitmo awaits you all my learned friends! Rendition...?
Ergo... plead guilty, its cheaper than going broke, even if you are innocent.
Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
An interesting read.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Let's go back to the ancient school tradition were masters and artisans of every discipline only shared is knowledge with fellow members and disciples.
Let's develope obscure societies with secret rules, strict hierarchies and stupid ceremonies all for the high and noble ideal of keeping the secrets away from the peasants.
Welcome to the future, welcome to the Middle Age.
***Game Over***Insert Coin***
If you're in front of even one paying customer, singing along to your iPod is still a public performance requiring payment. Under the right circumstances, singing a song on stage in front of a large audience could be non-commercial. (I sang a Ween song on a "stage" in front of at least 100 people at the national Rainbow Gathering last year, a very non-commercial venue.)
If I'm playing in a bar with one guy drinking, royalties are required; if I'm playing for free at a friend's party with 100 people there, royalties are not required.
Size of the audience is not relevant.
Same goes with teaching a song. What, if I'm at that party with 100 people and I tell everyone what the chords to "Louie, Louie" are (and that they're the same as "Wild Thing"), I owe somebody a nickel? No way. That's a factual statement, covered by my free speech rights. And it doesn't matter if there are 1,000 people at that party, or 10,000.
And if I post that information to the internet - the chords are A, D, E, D, repeat (and the break on Wild Thing is G - A - G - A) - that's still my free speech right.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I don't agree with a lot of the stuff that people post on here. I don't agree with a lot of people's political views. I am against the war (which I would assume most here are). I'm against smoking bans in states and cities on private property (I think if you don't like a restraunt because it is smoke-filled you can do what my parents and I did when i was litte: tell them their restraunt smells like ass and we won't be back unless they ban smoking in their facility). I think private businesses (but not government or businesses with public contracts) should be able to discriminate against people if they damn well please, whether it be because they don't like gays, catholics, women, white people, or whatever the hell they like (but if they have public contracts they should have to adhere to non-discriminatory policies). If they discriminate I'll be one of the ones telling everyone I know not go there.
I'm a Christian and I believe God created man (not necessarily 6k years ago, but w/e) but I don't think we should teach creation in schools as scientific theory. I don't think homosexuality is necessarly right but I am 100% (and I argue with as many other christians as I can to try to convince them) pro gay-marriage because, thank God we do not live in a theocracy (look at the middle east). I am for drug legalization and against the death penalty. I agree with some and disagree with some of the views that are the norm here.
Yet this kind of shit is just RIDICULOUS. OF COURSE you should NOT be allowed to sneak into the studio, copy the sheets of music (or w/e if they are on a computer), paste them into a file, save it as a PDF and save it online. I think we can pretty much all agree that this should be a civil infraction (I think reasonable people should also agree that there is nothing *criminal* about doing that and the gov should not be paying to investigate copyright infringment either, but w/e).
But if someone figures out the damn chords themselves from listening to the fucking music, YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY ABILITY TO PREVENT THEM FROM SHARING WHAT THEY HAVE HEARD WITH THEIR FRIENDS. GOOD GOD. If someone listens to your music, figures out how to play it on their instrument (lets not limit this to popular music) there should be NO LAW and NO PENALTY for them sharing what they have figured out. To try to control human thought is just unconciable.
There is a *HUGE* difference between trying to share the ability to play a song and infringing on someone's copyright. When copyright was invented (before the U.S. even existed) it didn't extend to people trying to figure out the notes to what they were hearing and playing them back to their friends.
It is already at the point where schools have been sued for performing music in plays etc when they did not have a license to perform it in a public performance. Is this what was intended?
I believe that if you walk up to someone on the street who is not familiar at all with copyright law and ask them questions about what they believe is right or not right, you would garner a pretty reasonable response overall. It is worthy of a lawsuit if you make a play about some guy's script and charge money for it. That guy who wrote the damn thing deserves to be compensated. But if your kid's elementary school finds that play on the 'net and performs it for the parents at Thanksgiving, fuck you if you think that is wrong and fuck you if you think the school should have to pay. Seriously.
There comes a point at which our society needs to decide which way it is going to go. There can either be a place for the modern day media corporations, or they can stay behind. That is their choice. But they cannot drag everyone else back in time with them. If they succeed in taking control of what people can or cannot think then it is only a matter of time before freedom of (or from) religion, freedom to own firearms, freedom to speak our minds (well, drugs are already illegal so we are getting there), etc... also fall to the same precedents.
replacing it with NEW Folger's Crystals! (lets see if they notice the difference)
Then amateur tabs is definitely not the answer. The general concensus today is that most guitarists are unable to even read a staff, especially when it's a 6 (7 or even 12) string guitar chord. Tabs are used everywhere because they are easier, the music staff is pushed up an octave for guitar from piano, and it really was never designed for guitar. This is why they even have finger diagrams for chords. It's much easier than reading several notes, unless you truly learn that way first. If any guitarist saw tabs after learning "hard" chords on staffs, I think they would immediately see the benefits of reading tabs live if they weren't going to memorize it. Would you consider learning tabs as "reading music"? I definitely would.
I agree on understanding music theory though. Not even I have done much of that yet.
And the other thing is that some people are said to just not have a musical ear, which is the reason for written music, including tabs. Someone loves the song Johnny B. Goode, but can't even figure out that fast guitar riff going on through the entire song because they simply can't hear it. And a lot of times that's true for me even, sometimes notes are too fast to hear (this is the time when I pull out Sound Forge and do a time stretch), and I keep matching notes, sometimes tabbing them down, till I finish. Other times the scale is obvious; I think I have a better than ear than some of my friends because some praise tab sites like OLGA, and I hate what I would consider inaccuracies. Books are 100% accurate apparently, but I really don't own many and don't feel like I need to (plus the price). The argument then becomes, as usual, why pay when you can get it for free? Shouldn't written music be like free speech? Why can't the publishing company lower the prices? Sometimes, even the most simple music gets priced at $20 or more per book (I'm not advocating prices based on complexity either). That's more than the album, which you could buy and just play by ear if you have one. My $0.02.
Believe me, I am well aware the current copyright system has some major conceptual holes in it (most of which even the Slashdot community really hasn't gotten to noticing yet) and the shit has only begun to hit the fan. But the system is not so broken that they would fail to notice such an obvious hole that would allow you to basically strip copyright protection from whatever you want with minimal effort.
Just because I am correcting you on this point should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the entire existing system, or as anything other than, simply, a correction on how you understand the current system.
> Would you consider learning tabs as "reading music"?
:)
Hmm... Not really. It's more like reading "Cliffs Notes." You get the gist of it, but the execution is greatly obscured. Sheet music tells you things that just aren't in tabulatures: most importantly, note and rest duration. But it also shows other things, like note style (legato/staccato), volume changes ([de]crescendos), and there are other handy things like codas. I believe it is also easier to denote dramatic changes in the music, such as time or key signatures, in the middle of a song.
Also with sheet music, it is easier to represent more than one instrument on the same page, although since we are only talking about one instrument here (guitar), that's mostly just a space-saving convenience and not really important in this discussion. Unless you have a friend that plays Bass.
BTW, I'm not really suggesting that tabs are worse than sheet music. With tabs, a creative person may take more liberties with the music, adding their own feel to it, making it "theirs." With sheet music, people usually play exactly what is printed, exactly as was originally intended.
Learning how to read music . . .
.is mimicry, done wrong.
. .
Music is sound, not notation. The ear is the proper organ for sound, not the eye.
The correct way to use notation is to "hear" it in the mind's ear and play from that, so the first thing you need to play well from notation is a really good ear. . . backed up by music theory so you know what it is you're hearing; and why.
But I advise beginning to learn your theory with a monochord and a yard/meterstick and moving on to a one octave koto/dulcimer, tuning your intervals by ear. The piano has been the death of musical sense.
KFG
When Mozart was in Italy, he went to the Sistine Chapel to hear Gregorio Allegri's Miserere performed. He then proceeded to write it out from memory, returning the next day to correct some minor errors. Miserere was a closely guarded work of the Vatican and what Mozart did would have been illegal.
Kind of funny that one of the first instances of music "theft" came from one of the most brilliant composers of all time.
Learning how to play an instrument could become illegal:
3 8&tid=141 to write 'hits' and subsequently ram the product down our collective throats.
When you learn how to play an instrument, you gain the skills to be able to 'reverse-engineer' and copy just about any piece of music. What's to stop you from learning the notes to a melody then?
I suppose if the RIAA had their way they would use software http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/18/13292
After all, if they use software to write the music, they no longer need artists.
If they never need to pay an artist, they keep all the profits.
Finally, by discouraging the freedom of sharing of musical exploration and discovery among people, they hope to make us unable to compete.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
I'm sick of hearing about artists supporting this kind of crap. If you don't want people to learn from your creative output, don't make it public! Sit in your room and play your fancy guitar chords through your headphones. All intellectual progress has come from open sharing of ideas, not from hoarding them. I'm a DJ, and this reminds me of early DJs who used to soak their records in hot soapy water to remove the labels so that people couldn't see what record they were playing. It's yet another logical leap of absurdity, since they were playing music recorded by someone else to begin with. Luckily, the world of turntablism appears to have moved beyond that embarrassing history, as most well known DJs today share their techniques and "secrets" through classes, videos, etc. I think suing people for sharing ideas in general is nonsense, but doing it in this way - specifically attacking people for figuring something out on their own and sharing what they've learned - is uniquely execrable.
Since the MPA and NMPA are now claiming that tabs violate their copyright, how does this affect music teachers? When I learnt how to play a guitar from a private teacher, he used a combination of sheet music and tablature to teach me how to play. He wrote down the music notation as well as the tabs and did not use any published book.
If they MPA and NMPA are shown to have rights concerning music tabs, then teachers will find it much harder to teach since they HAVE to purchase *AA authorized sheet music and cannot 'reverse engineer' the sounds into notations.
The scary part is that in the future other forms of media will be restricted so much that any cultural development will stagnate so much that we all might as well be zombies.
Very true, which is why today there is more and more music coming out that does not follow the "rules", even music theory rules. See the links below please:
Noise
Noise music FAQ
These are some of the many genres today breaking all the "rules." I don't personally like this stuff, but I know many others who do, and I can definitely see in the future that things like this will change music back to the way it was before the "experts" came along.
Indeed everyone will sing again and play instruments without a care, search YouTube for noise music videos, it's crazy shit and people seem to like it.
People become musicians by playing with music. First step is often chord based from sites like OLGA. Then progressing to full tablatures, again from OLGA. Then they are good enought to start making money.
Then they start paying royalties on songs they cover when they start selling music, or mildly serious public performance. RIAA starts making money. But it all starts from those guitar tabs!
RIAA makes money from talent. Talent starts from OLGA. So RIAA makes their money thanks to OLGA. What a great reasong for RIAA to shut it down.
If I thought that they had any logic, I'd be puzzled. But this is just so typical.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp